Encourage discussion

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So how is this informal get together of women discussing Church issues significantly different from what goes on here on this board every day?

Not much.  It's in person.  It's a small group and focused.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church.  They are a mix of active LDS, ex-LDS and less participating, shall we say. 

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings? 

Thanks for your thoughts. 

Haven't read the thread yet

These things will turn into gripe sessions real quick.  Guar-aan- teeeed.  Negative vibes with no opposition just build on each other and could turn into a perfect storm.

Not good.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There were some ladies in our neighborhood doing this very thing...and the Bishop got wind of it and threatened church discipline if they didn't shut it down...nothing like the potential chill of male patriarchy sticking its nose into a woman's affairs to fan the flames of doubt.

Oh man, that sounds unfortunate.  Being as the ladies are from all around the SL valley and even creeping, as I understand it from down south and up north, I don't think a local leader would have much influence except upon maybe individual group members. 

My mom's still up by you, BTW, and I'm pretty sure she's in the same stake as you.  Her long time home teacher, friend of my late father, the kind of guy who looked up to my dad so much he wants to make sure his widow remains happy and healthy, is as I understand it a member of the stake Presidency.  So you better be careful I might figure out who these ladies are/were.  My wife might actually be interested to connect.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Haven't read the thread yet

These things will turn into gripe sessions real quick.  Guar-aan- teeeed.  Negative vibes with no opposition just build on each other and could turn into a perfect storm.

Not good.

I tend to have more faith in people.  My wife is pretty balanced and sees through overt negativity.  I think balance will be brought in as some get carried away from time to time.  But I guess we'll see. 

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

How is that any different than various types of people discussing things on this board?

Do you think they would actively discourage men to join them in their discussions?  You seem to be saying that only women are involved in those discussions,  so I would wonder why it would be only women.

But women are discouraged to be involved in any priesthood meeting right???  The relief society is under priesthood authority..Why wouldn't a woman want to have a voice outside of her exclusion?

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

should I fear the results of these meetings? 

Just curious, what "result" would you find fearful?

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There were some ladies in our neighborhood doing this very thing...and the Bishop got wind of it and threatened church discipline if they didn't shut it down...nothing like the potential chill of male patriarchy sticking its nose into a woman's affairs to fan the flames of doubt.

That could really backfire and may end up pushing some out of the church who are struggling 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Okrahomer said:

Just curious, what "result" would you find fearful?

I don't know there is anything to fear at all.  I think some might find something fearful about it, but I'm not easily convinced. 

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not much.  It's in person.  It's a small group and focused.

Well I think that what ever positive or negative aspects that one could find with participation here or other social media where such discussions happen, would also be applicable to such a group.

I do think that face to face discussions are more enjoyable and add quite a bit to the depth of the conversation. So often I will make a comment on this board which I view as totally benign or even humorous, only to find out quickly how differently people reacted to it than I expected. It is much easier to gauge the tone and meaning of a conversation IRL than it is on a message board. I suspect that for the most part, if the participants of this board were actually sitting around in a room talking most of us would have a totally different view of each other and be a lot more sympathetic of each others view points.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know there is anything to fear at all.  I think some might find something fearful about it, but I'm not easily convinced. 

Sounds like you're very supportive of your wife.  Not all husbands would encourage their wives openly discussing issues with others and I think it's great.  I'd imagine that this has probably opened up discussions between the two of you as well.

Edited April 28, 2016 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh man, that sounds unfortunate.  Being as the ladies are from all around the SL valley and even creeping, as I understand it from down south and up north, I don't think a local leader would have much influence except upon maybe individual group members. 

My mom's still up by you, BTW, and I'm pretty sure she's in the same stake as you.  Her long time home teacher, friend of my late father, the kind of guy who looked up to my dad so much he wants to make sure his widow remains happy and healthy, is as I understand it a member of the stake Presidency.  So you better be careful I might figure out who these ladies are/were.  My wife might actually be interested to connect.

haha....yeah it had a real chilling effect on the group and it eventually disbanded as a result...it caused a real WTH moment for the non-members in the group

[smac97]

On 4/28/2016 at 10:36 AM, stemelbow said:

Well I remain appreciative of your perspective even though I find your application to people or marriage to be way off course.  The Church is not a relationship nor is it a frail person with whom we talk behind her back. 

First, a person's relationship to the Church has some parallels with a person's relationship to his family members (such as his wife).

Second, I have never characterized either your wife or the Church as "frail."

Quote

it is a conglomeration of people, culture, tradition, teaching, history that is unique.  To discuss it is to discuss ideas and feelings.  It is not to hate people.  it is not to fight or battle. 

With respect, the tenor and content of a discussion about a person's family member can be colored by animosity, faultfinding, and resentment.  Similarly, the tenor and content of a discussion about the LDS Church can also be colored by animosity, faultfinding, and resentment.  

What you are describing does not seem to be a discussion founded on charity, goodwill, faith, etc.  It sounds like a discussion designed to facilitate criticism and faultfinding.  And the big problem with attempts at faultfinding is . . . that you'll pretty much always succeed at it.

Quote

Sure there will be, as in all cases when people discuss, negative things said about ideas and perhaps even people. 

Talking about "negative things" seem to be the point and purpose of the meetings you describe.

Based on your continued silence on the issue, I can only assume that these meetings do not include what we typically think of as the hallmarks of faith: prayer, study of the scriptures and of "the best books," attending the temple, and so on.  These are the things which typically invite the Spirit in.  Conversely, faultfinding, resentment, anger, etc. tend to drive the Spirit out.

If this group was talking about politics, or 19th-century English literature, or the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would have no qualms at all with folks getting together to complain and gripe.  But the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is unique and special.  Discussing the Gospel, the Church, etc., in ways that are in harmony with the Spirit requires . . . the presence of the Spirit.  

I am reminded of a conversation in "The Mountain of the Lord," a 1993 film produced by the Church about the building of the Salt Lake Temple. The conversation is between President Woodruff and a (fictional) reporter from the eastern United States who had traveled to Utah to cover the dedication of the temple. This conversation is in this YouTube clip (starting at about 1:37):

Quote

Reporter: Might I ask you a difficult question?

 

President Woodruff: Please.

 

Reporter: Theoretically speaking, is it possible that even I might enter into the temple and receive these ordinances?

 

President Woodruff: The temple is for anyone who is living in accordance with the commandments that God has given with respect to the temple.

 

Reporter: One doesn't just walk into the temple.

 

President Woodruff: No.  Even in the days of Solomon's Temple, there were certain laws of purification that had to be met before one was allowed to enter the temple.  Today, even those who are members of the Church must first spiritually prepare themselves and be worthy to receive these blessings.

 

Reporter: And this is because those who are not properly prepared, such as myself, might not fully grasp their meaning?

 

President Woodruff: In their fullness, the realities of eternity are beyond our mortal capacity to comprehend.  These covenants are given by revelation, and they can only be understood by revelation.  Just as in the ancient temples we spoke of earlier, the temple is a place to which the Saints can go and feel they are coming into the presence of the Lord.  Very important truths about their relationship to him, and the purpose of life.  This is why we build temples.

"These covenants are given by revelation, and they can only be understood by revelation."  Aptly stated, I think.  

I think this concept generally applies with equal utility to most aspects of the Restored Gospel.  The Gospel is to be "understood by revelation."  With respect, the meetings you are describing do not appear to be designed to invite revelation through the Spirit of God.  They appear to have an altogether different objective.

Quote

While you see any notion of speaking openly about people's feelings regarding the Church to be a gripefest, designed to foster and encourage faultfinding and complaining, I see a healthy environment where ideas are shared, thoughts are encouraged, rather than beat down. 

A "healthy environment" to discuss matters of faith pertaining to the Restored Gospel?  An "environment" which you characterize as discussions by participants about "their issues with the Church," issues that they are communicating to each other during these meetings in "pretty harsh" ways, discussions convened by a person who has "negative ideas about" and is "bored with" the Church, who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who invited likeminded persons to attend a meeting with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church."

This, in your view, is "healthy?"  Do you really think that discussions such as those described above are likely to yield conclusions informed by faith, by the scriptures, by the Spirit?

Quote

But, I can see where you are coming from because your view is similar to many members views.  But it feels to be bred by fear a desire to isolate and hide. 

You have repeatedly, and falsely, accused me of propagating or advocating the use of "fear" in discussions about the Restored Gospel.  I resent this.  Please stop it.

Quote

I hear ya.  Church is a splendid place for your type of discussion.  It simply doesn't work for those of us who would rather go deeper. 

I do not think that a roundtable designed to facilitate complaints about and faultfinding of the Church founded by God, led by prophets, and housing God's priesthood will facilitate "go{ing} deeper" into the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I just don't think that's the way God wants the Saints to behave.  He has given us the Church.  If it has flaws, we can and should work together to overcome them, repair the damage done, and move forward with the work God has given us.  I do not think the Saints help/improve either themselves or the Church by calling together meetings that are A) apparently devoid of efforts to bring the Spirit into the discussions (scriptures, prayer, study, etc.) and which instead focus on B) participants sharing in "pretty harsh" ways "their issues with the Church," meetings convened by a person who has "negative ideas about" and is "bored with" the Church, who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future."

The Spirit can help us "go deeper."  The Scriptures can to that.  Prayer.  Faith.  Hope.  Study.  Obedience.  Patience.  Humility.  These things will all help a person "go deeper."  The things you are describing . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 28, 2016 by smac97

[Okrahomer]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know there is anything to fear at all.  I think some might find something fearful about it, but I'm not easily convinced. 

Fair enough.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There were some ladies in our neighborhood doing this very thing...and the Bishop got wind of it and threatened church discipline if they didn't shut it down...nothing like the potential chill of male patriarchy sticking its nose into a woman's affairs to fan the flames of doubt.

This is so not good.  Really.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

My wife is a wonderful person in virtually all respects.  She is a joy to have in my life, and I am grateful for my relationship with her.

She is not, however, utterly without flaw or defect.  She has her foibles.  But she is at her core a good and decent and beautiful person.

If a stranger, or even perhaps some general-but-not-particularly-close acquaintance of mine, were to come to me and ask that I sit down and listen to him outline what he dislikes about my wife, what my wife's flaws were, etc., I would decline...

On the other hand, what if the group was bigger and conducted its meetings on a public message board called Smac'sWifeDialogue.org? 

Just sayin'....

[smac97]

On 4/28/2016 at 11:42 AM, Analytics said:

On the other hand, what if the group was bigger and conducted its meetings on a public message board called Smac'sWifeDialogue.org? 

Just sayin'....

I don't follow.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

But women are discouraged to be involved in any priesthood meeting right???  The relief society is under priesthood authority..Why wouldn't a woman want to have a voice outside of her exclusion?

No not right, to my knowledge.  If a woman wanted to join a general priesthood meeting I don't think anyone would tell her to leave.  Some meetings are only for leaders and only those leaders are invited to attend but any meeting open to all men generally is also open to all women, as far as I know

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't follow.

My point was that the discussion group in question is similar to here.  If you wouldn't want to meet with a group of friends to discuss issues they have with your wife, I would think you wouldn't want to engage in similar conversations on the Internet.

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I was not speaking of something as innocuous as merely "discussing doctrines and history of the Church."  You seem to be painting a much more critical picture:

• "My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church."
• "As a result she has reported some pretty harsh things being said about the Church by some, but it seems everyone's taking it just fine."
• "She opposes the idea, much like myself, that we should for some reason shut people out who are assertive or proselytizing in their efforts against the Church, or at least shut them out when they do so."
• "She kind wants out of the Church."
• "Of course she has some negative ideas about the Church."
• "I think it's possible in the near future she may find herself out of the church."
• "She's pretty bored with Church generally, and finds the environment a little inhospitable for her."

Continuing with my perspective, here's how the above statements would turn out:

• "My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with their husbands."
• "As a result she has reported some pretty harsh things being said about their husbands by some, but it seems everyone's taking it just fine."
• "She opposes the idea, much like myself, that we should for some reason shut people out who are assertive or proselytizing in their efforts against their husbands, or at least shut them out when they do so."
• "She kind wants out of the her marriage to me."
• "Of course she has some negative ideas about me."
• "I think it's possible in the near future she may find herself out of our marriage."
• "She's pretty bored with our marriage generally, and finds the environment a little inhospitable for her."

If I was having difficulties with my wife, and if my wife proposed to meet regularly with other women who having problems with their husbands, and if these meetings became a venue for these women to complaint about and criticize and find fault with their husbands, then I would be very distressed and concerned.  I would feel this way because my marriage is important to me.  I believe it has eternal significance.  I have made covenants pertaining to my marriage.  I owe my wife and our marriage my allegiance.  I work hard to maintain my marital relationship.  So a hypothetical group gripefest which, I think, is designed to foster and encourage faultfinding and complaining (I haven't seen you mention anything about the women in this group praying together, reading scriptures, studying out of "the best books," or any other efforts to foster faith and perseverance in their relationships with the Church).  Such a hypothetical group would appear to be designed to damage or destroy marital relationships, not strengthen and build them up.

For me, this does not look like even a judgment call.  It's not a "reasonable minds can disagree" about the most likely outcome of these meetings.  I think that most likely outcome is pretty darn obvious.

Of course we should be discussing the Church's teachings.  But we should do so with faith and hope.  By searching the scriptures, by seeking inspiration through study and prayer and temple worship and humility and patience.  None of us are percipient witnesses to the form and content of the meetings you are describing, but what you are describing seems pretty bleak.

We all know the things we can do to study and grow in faith in and knowledge and understanding of the Restored Gospel.  From what you are describing, those things aren't being done.  

Nope.  I strongly encourage Latter-day Saints to adhere to the Lord's admonition in D&C 109:7: "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."

I have not, and do no, advocate "fear."  I advocate faith and study and the Spirit as alternatives to faultfinding and resentment and doubt.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've read your posts. You express feeling uncomfortable should your wife freely discuss (negative) issues about the church and should she discuss (negative) issues about you, your marriage or your realtionship. Especially should she meet regularily to discuss these matters.

I find your remarks troubling. Not because you feel uncomfortable should your wife negatively discuss the church or your marriage, that's your opinion. 

But I don't understand why it is a concern. Were my wife to meet with others to discuss our marriage, or to discuss problems she had with me, the problem isn't with her discussing these things. The discussions are only symptons. 

My wife works a forty hour week (well actually, her admin job occupies about 60 hours of her time). What she discusses and with whom are entirely up to her. When she has issues with me I would hope she would discuss them with me. When my now deceased first wife had issues with the church she tried to discuss them with the church. The church (read: bishop, stake president, relief society admin) the church responded as if both deaf and dumb.

Discussions should be a two way communication. If one of the participants refuses to participate, it is not a discussion. It is only natural to search for those who willingly participate.

[why me]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church.  They are a mix of active LDS, ex-LDS and less participating, shall we say. 

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings? 

Thanks for your thoughts. 

Fear is a strong word. More like concerned. However, it all depends on the tone of the exlds. If they have  a strident tone and believe that the church is false (no proof that it is but just conjecture) then I may be concerned a little. But life is life and whatever will happen will happen. I find it interesting that a group of people would get to gether to talk about their issues with the church. It is like catholics getting together talking about issues with their church. What would be the point to have exlds and lds talking about such things?

[smac97]

On 4/28/2016 at 0:18 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

I've read your posts. You express feeling uncomfortable should your wife freely discuss (negative) issues about the church and should she discuss (negative) issues about you, your marriage or your realtionship. Especially should she meet regularily to discuss these matters.

Yep.

Quote

I find your remarks troubling. Not because you feel uncomfortable should your wife negatively discuss the church or your marriage, that's your opinion. 

But I don't understand why it is a concern. Were my wife to meet with others to discuss our marriage, or to discuss problems she had with me, the problem isn't with her discussing these things. The discussions are only symptons. 

I disagree.  I think publicly "airing the family's dirty laundry" is very much a problem.  If I had a disagreement with my wife over a perceived fault or failing in her character or actions, I think it would be a betrayal of her trust and confidence for me to publicly disparage her about her shortcomings.

If she has a problem, or if there is a difficulty in our relationship, I am all for discussing such things.  But I would discuss them in the proper time, place and manner.  Publicly proclaiming my wife's faults to the world would not be a part of that process.

Quote

My wife works a forty hour week (well actually, her admin job occupies about 60 hours of her time). What she discusses and with whom are entirely up to her. When she has issues with me I would hope she would discuss them with me. When my now deceased first wife had issues with the church she tried to discuss them with the church. The church (read: bishop, stake president, relief society admin) the church responded as if both deaf and dumb.

First, I can't speak to the particular circumstances of what your wife faced.

Second, the Church has been getting better at handling difficult questions.  See, e.g., Elder Ballard's recent remarks:

Quote

Expounding upon the opportunities and responsibilities teachers in the Church Educational System have, Elder Ballard encouraged instructors to study by faith and teach their students to do the same.

“As Church education moves forward in the 21st century, each of you needs to consider any changes you should make in the way you prepare to teach, how you teach and what you teach if you are to build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth,” Elder Ballard said. “Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about it!’ Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.”

Fortunately, Elder Ballard taught, the Lord has provided timely and timeless counsel to teachers — to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

In an increasingly secular world that is hostile to faith, family and gospel standards, religious instructors can help students by teaching them what it means to combine study and faith as they learn.

“Teach them by modeling this skill and approach in class,” Elder Ballard counseled.

Knowledge by faith produces pure testimony, and a pure testimony has the power to change lives, he declared. 

Third, I am not persuaded that your wife's experience, while unfortunate, is necessarily representative of how the Church responds to such things.  I think there is a broad spectrum of responses, from the unfortunate "deaf and dumb" to the informed and thoughtful and based-on-the-scriptures-and-on-the-Spirit efforts of many local leaders, efforts which I suspect don't get much attention.

Quote

Discussions should be a two way communication. If one of the participants refuses to participate, it is not a discussion. It is only natural to search for those who willingly participate.

I don't think we can fairly say that the situation described by Stemelbow has arisen because his wife's church leaders have refused to talk to her.  That would just be conjecture on our part, would it not?

Moreover, I think it is an error to assume that Latter-day Saints are absolved of any responsibility to study and research and ponder and pray about such things for themselves, and that they should instead insist on local leaders hopping to and answering questions, particularly A) those questions for which there are likely already answers available through study, and B) imponderable questions for which we lack sufficient light and knowledge.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, a person's relationship to the Church has some parallels with a person's relationship to his family members (such as his wife).

Second, I have never characterized either your wife or the Church as "frail."

With respect, the tenor and content of a discussion about a person's family member can be colored by animosity, faultfinding, and resentment.  Similarly, the tenor and content of a discussion about the LDS Church can also be colored by animosity, faultfinding, and resentment.  

What you are describing does not seem to be a discussion founded on charity, goodwill, faith, etc.  It sounds like a discussion designed to facilitate criticism and faultfinding.  And the big problem with attempts at faultfinding is . . . that you'll pretty much always succeed at it.

I get your comparison.  I just plain disagree with it, for the most part.  I don't see discussing issues, raising concerns, talking through life as setting a tenor of animosity, faultfinding, and resentment.  Not at all.  I find the comparison of suggesting someone wanting to discuss the Church openly to complaining incessantly about a person to be silly.  It came off to me as a weird comparison that seems to breed fear, more than anything, even if that was not your intent.  There's nothing to fear when you follow your heart, I figure, even though we often do proceed with fear. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Talking about "negative things" seem to be the point and purpose of the meetings you describe.

Well, that was your creation.  The meetings I describe's purpose is to have an atmosphere where these ladies can get together and discuss the welfare of their souls, discuss that which is truly inside them.  It's a beautiful thing if you realize that should be the purpose of the Church. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Based on your continued silence on the issue, I can only assume that these meetings do not include what we typically think of as the hallmarks of faith: prayer, study of the scriptures and of "the best books," attending the temple, and so on.  These are the things which typically invite the Spirit in.  Conversely, faultfinding, resentment, anger, etc. tend to drive the Spirit out.

If this group was talking about politics, or 19th-century English literature, or the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would have no qualms at all with folks getting together to complain and gripe.  But the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is unique and special.  Discussing the Gospel, the Church, etc., in ways that are in harmony with the Spirit requires . . . the presence of the Spirit.  

I'm not silent.  I'm not in their meetings, but I get good reviews of them from my wife.  As far as I can tell they aren't quite what you describe.  But they are a place where people are free to explore ideas beyond the level they feel free to do at Church. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am reminded of a conversation in "The Mountain of the Lord," a 1993 film produced by the Church about the building of the Salt Lake Temple. The conversation is between President Woodruff and a (fictional) reporter from the eastern United States who had traveled to Utah to cover the dedication of the temple. This conversation is in this YouTube clip (starting at about 1:37):

"These covenants are given by revelation, and they can only be understood by revelation."  Aptly stated, I think.  

I think this concept generally applies with equal utility to most aspects of the Restored Gospel.  The Gospel is to be "understood by revelation."  With respect, the meetings you are describing do not appear to be designed to invite revelation through the Spirit of God.  They appear to have an altogether different objective.

A "healthy environment" to discuss matters of faith pertaining to the Restored Gospel?  An "environment" which you characterize as discussions by participants about "their issues with the Church," issues that they are communicating to each other during these meetings in "pretty harsh" ways, discussions convened by a person who has "negative ideas about" and is "bored with" the Church, who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future," and who invited likeminded persons to attend a meeting with the intention of them sharing "different things . . . including their issues with the Church."

This, in your view, is "healthy?"  Do you really think that discussions such as those described above are likely to yield conclusions informed by faith, by the scriptures, by the Spirit?

Of course.  I dont' quite see things in the dichotomous way you describe.  God loves all and will be there for all.  When people share what's truly in their heart and in their mind, God is not necessarily condemning.  I think He's encouraged.  He wants people to follow their paths through.  If they are genuine, full of love, a desire to do good, He's there.  You seem to suggest that because someone has a pretty harsh view of something a leader has said, or something the Church has done or messages, is so negative it drives all possibility for God.  But I disagree, completely.  God loves us to reason.  He wants us to use our capacities.  Sure, it takes some balance and control.  But that doesn't mean just pretend all is well in hopes we don't get out of line.  He'll help us get back in line, even if He lets us run out in the wild sometimes. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You have repeatedly, and falsely, accused me of propagating or advocating the use of "fear" in discussions about the Restored Gospel.  I resent this.  Please stop it.

I'm giving my impression.  When I read your posts I hear a lot of fear.  I may be wrong.  But I should be free to give my impressions, no?  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  I do not mean to offend.  You've also characterized the meetings this group of ladies have as something that it might not be.  Sure you've quoted me in some sense, but you've also drawn conclusions that I did not suggest.  You've added to it.  It's fine.  I get where your impressions come from. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I do not think that a roundtable designed to facilitate complaints about and faultfinding of the Church founded by God, led by prophets, and housing God's priesthood will facilitate "go{ing} deeper" into the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I just don't think that's the way God wants the Saints to behave.  He has given us the Church.  If it has flaws, we can and should work together to overcome them, repair the damage done, and move forward with the work God has given us.  I do not think the Saints help/improve either themselves or the Church by calling together meetings that are A) apparently devoid of efforts to bring the Spirit into the discussions (scriptures, prayer, study, etc.) and which instead focus on B) participants sharing in "pretty harsh" ways "their issues with the Church," meetings convened by a person who has "negative ideas about" and is "bored with" the Church, who "wants out of the Church," who "may find herself out of the Church" in the "near future."

The Spirit can help us "go deeper."  The Scriptures can to that.  Prayer.  Faith.  Hope.  Study.  Obedience.  Patience.  Humility.  These things will all help a person "go deeper."  The things you are describing . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get where you're coming from, Smac.  I just disagree. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

But women are discouraged to be involved in any priesthood meeting right???  The relief society is under priesthood authority..Why wouldn't a woman want to have a voice outside of her exclusion?

Priesthood meetings are open to whomever wants to attend, yet another overly rigid misconception.

Not blaming you for that belief

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Priesthood meetings are open to whomever wants to attend, yet another overly rigid misconception.

Not blaming you for that belief

Thanks for not blaming me..I truly thought that women were relatively unwelcome.  Does this include General Priesthood meetings?

[Analytics]

 

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for not blaming me..I truly thought that women were relatively unwelcome.  Does this include General Priesthood meetings?

Checkmate.